Is There A 'Little Las Vegas' In Rockingham Park's Future?

   Similar to last year's town vote on privatized trash pickup, Salem voters left no question on what side of the casino issue they stood at the polls last Tuesday, the 12th. An overwhelming 81% X'ed their ballots in favor of the single-casino proposal that has enjoyed mostly bipartisan citizen approval over the past couple of years of debate.

   To be sure, there are several anti-gambling arguments that the 19% can correctly counter with, including traffic planning (assuming the Rockingham Park property winds up being the casino site), the unarguable fact that there is and always will be a tiny percentage of genuine problem gamblers whose habit can direly affect themselves and their families on economic and social levels, as well as the possibility that anticipated revenues may not match the rosy predictions that most of the 81% are anticipating.

   All of the above and more were trumped by the at least short-term siren call of Millennium Gaming's proposal to purchase Rockingham Park and spend up to $450 million building the new facility, as well as pay governor Maggie Hassan's $80 million licensing fee to build the casino. There are also the notorious economic estimates of lost potential annual state dollars (up to $75 million) to Massachusetts, as well as Connecticut and Rhode Island due to their already-functioning casino sites Mohegan Sun, Foxwoods and Twin Rivers that have been in operation for years.

   Legalized gambling has always been a two-edged sword due to the obvious financial ramifications pro and con, as well as the (again) unarguable fact that whether one chooses to gamble is a voluntary and lawful choice, despite it remaining an unsavory practice to many. This makes it as distasteful to numerous gaming  opponents as smoking, drinking or watching R-rated movies in one's spare time is to the opposite camps of THOSE activities. 

   The State Senate voted 16-8 last Thursday to approve the single-casino bill (SB152), and the House will be debating, voting on and tweaking their differing casino proposals over the next few weeks (one of them calls for two casinos and another calls for six (!) -both non-starters). And our NH Police and Troopers Associations both came out four-square for the single-destination bill last Monday, their main point being that with only 317 State troopers on duty their hands are often tied re: response time and even their own personal safety. The casino dollars would help finance Hassan's plan to add 15 new troopers to our payroll, and indeed the proposed casino would have state troopers patrolling it, along with Millennium's own security team.

   So as House members ponder the overwhelming "yea" votes from our local citizens, it should be crystal clear to them what side their constituents are on, despite the personal qualms on the matter some of them may have. For instance, I haven't gambled any more dinero than the cost of an annual Super Bowl square for years, and my occasional Atlantic City trips back in the 80's regularly netted me about $50 in blackjack winnings or (more often) around the same amount in losings. So I'm not exactly a big spender, meaning that even if a Rockingham casino becomes a reality, my sole destination spot in that area will continue to be the Mall.

   But most non-cardsharps like myself fully understand the allure some of our friends have for a fun weekend at the tables or the wheels, as long as they're not gambling the tuition money.  And anyone can rejoice in the resulting financial influx for New Hampshire that has been realized for decades by our sister states, even if the total doesn't quite end up matching the rosiest preliminary estimates we're all reading about. Congratulations to Salem voters for making their voices heard loud and clear, and let's see if the House of Representatives has been listening.